Talk:New Age/Archive 9

Need for specific references

[Many of these authors claim inspiration from an infinite intelligence, which is referred to by different authors by various names. Wayne Dyer refers to this as "The Source" or "Great Masters of the Universe". Louise Hay describes it/them as "some of the best teachers on the planet today." The Hicks' refer to this same source as "Abraham", Esther describing it as "infinite intelligence" and Jerry saying that, "They are the purest form of love I have ever experienced". Stuart Wilde says these higher beings of a superior intelligence are placed in a celestial dimension that is at 90 degrees to us and follows the direction of transverse waves of light, a construct predicated in part on the work of theoretical physicist Paul Dirac.]

The paragraph above is from the "Contemporary usage" sub-section; it lacks specific references. When quoting living persons, we should follow WP:CITE#CHALLENGED and WP:GRAPEVINE. This paragraph could probably be deleted accordingly; however, there may be some relevance. The references should provide exact page numbers – as well – so that the statements may be verified. These improvements could help the article become a "Good Article". How close to "GA" status are we? Some thoughts, please. All is One (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I find the same problem at the Age of Aquarius and Astrological Ages topics. The transcendental nature of many of the claims seem to imply that correct procedures do not need to be followed. I am deleting all additions to these two topics that do not comply with valid references with actual page numbers, otherwise it leads these topics open to just being a garbage can full of nonsense or questionable and unverified facts. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice; I agree. Your expertise would be greatly appreciated in the "Philosophy and cosmology" sub-section entry on Astrology; a [citation needed] tag is all that is there (no references). The definition of Astrology – as it relates to New Age beliefs – could be clarified as well. All is One (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

At the first opportunity I will look at the sub-section on astrology for references. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Scientific skepticism

The Scientific skepticism section should be removed as it is basically an attack on complementary or alternative medicine, so the skeptics should place their POV there, not at the New Age topic. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed the "Criticism" section heading to "Reception" and propose integrating it into the body where appropriate. No article exists—"Criticism of New Age". If one did exist, then a summary section with main link here would be adequate. This section is an invitation to pov comments, which are tedious to clean up on a regular basis. The article needs developed to GA status; readers need to know what is actually being criticized. For example, one third of the section ("Racial bias"; now "Ethnic") appears to be an historic issue – now resolved; it could be removed altogether since the issues are detailed in the articles on Alice Bailey and Rudolf Steiner. Also, the paragraph appears to misinterpret their intentions.All is One (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Integration completed. All is One (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sustainable living

Please help to develop the "Sustainable living" and "Lifestyle" sections as they relate to the New Age Movement. The article's references need to be checked and formatted as well; there still may be some advertising left. Also, if we can incorporate some of the "See also" section's internal links into the article, especially the "General topics". Just to let everyone know, Portal:New Age was deleted a few months ago; maybe we can create a new one. All is One (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of alternative therapies etc

The following should be removed as criticism of such therapies should appear in the specific topics asociated with the therapies. The criticism at this topic looks like preaching.

In medicine, such practices as therapeutic touch, homeopathy, chiropractic, and naturopathy involve hypotheses and treatments that have not been accepted by the conventional, science-based medical community through the normal course of empirical testing. Indirect harm may result when a patient declines proven scientific treatment in favor of unproven alternative treatments and thereby misses the benefit that may have accrued from the mainstream treatment

However, the National Institutes of Health (Bethesda, Maryland) began a program of research in 2005 to determine which – if any – alternative medicine practices may be useful in support of conventional medical practice

I am sure that in religious topics they are not full of sections criticising their beliefs, practices etc and much the same should apply at the New Age topic as in the end it sits somewhere between a quasi-religion and social movement. I would suggest that all criticism of New Age pratices etc that appear at this topic be put under the microscope and removed unless a very good reason remains to keep it in. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I just checked the Jehova's wittnesses topic and they do have a Criticism and controversies sub-section. However any criticism should keep to the topic. So while it may be relevant to say `some authorities disagree with the use of alternative therapies' is probably OK at the New age topic, to go into specific details is to go off topic because the topic here is not alternative therapies. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

My advice would be to "be bold" and remove it as outlined above. A lot of these entries were from drive-bys several months ago. All is One (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's on-topic and properly sourced, NPOV requires the inclusion of criticisms. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of New Age

The following should be removed in entirety as it only provides a web based reference which introduces a plethora of trivial blog like inputs that are not encyclopedic:

"+ : Some adherents of traditional disciplines such as the Lakota people, a tribe of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, reject the term New Age. They see the movement it represents as either not fully understanding, deliberately trivializing, or distorting their disciplines." Terry MacKinnell (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed said sentences as unsupported. All is One (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsupported by what? The source? If it was documented by the source, which is a V & RS, then you're engaging in whitewashing and violating NPOV, which requires the inclusion of properly sourced criticisms that are on-topic. Be very careful. I suggest you promptly self-revert. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This was not a reliable source. It is a personal website that quotes another website that quotes an original document. A website with an unknown copyright which states: "This document dates from 1993. I began collecting responses to the document in 1996. The document, to the best of recollection, was posted in 1995. You can also read a response to the declaration by Hyemeyohsts (Wolf) Storm posted on Yahoo Groups." Most of the parameters were left blank in the reference field. You did not read the reference, but reverted four of my edits based on the edit summaries and made accusatory statements saying that my edits were "vandalistic". I am not a vandal. Why delete edits which included internal links, en dashes, etc. and not just cut and paste the reference back or find a reliable source? I removed the two sentences because they were not properly sourced. As far as NPOV, I have copyedited criticism on this article for months. I endeavor to be neutral. I have removed link spam to New Age stores as well. Also, see Wikipedia:Criticism; consider creating the article Reception of the New Age Movement if the subject is notable. We can link to it with a section here at New Age. All is One (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a better source for this in James V. Fenelon (1998). Culturicide, resistance, and survival of the Lakota ("Sioux Nation"), Taylor & Francis, ISBN 0815331193, pp. 295-297. [1]. --EPadmirateur (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why the Neopaganism info box

The Neopaganism infobox wrongly implies that New age is a part of neopaganism when this is not the case. I suggest the box is placed at the foot of the article where it conveys the information that the subject is included in the neopagan article set , not at the top where it conveys to the reader that this is a universally held view of the topic. Lumos3 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree - neopaganism is a subset of the New Age movement or overlaps it but the New Age movement is not a subset of neopaganism. It should be demoted as you suggest. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Good move. I found this template on the Neopaganism article:

Do you think that we should change templates? We could add this one with the others in the "External links" section. It conveys the same basic information, but fits better in the article. All is One (talk) 05:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree this one would be better. The Neopaganism2 box gives too much detail and does not include New age as part of Neopaganism at all , although there are lots of cross over connections between New Age and Neopaganism thought. Lumos3 (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and took care of this. All is One (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Lack of suitable reference

Where is the reference for: " There is an emphasis on living in a simple sustainable way that attempts to reduce an individual's or society's use of the Earth's natural resources and shuns the consumer society."

Unless reliable references are used for all edits or additions to this topic it just becomes the dumping ground for people's personal point of view. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I provided the requested reference for the above material. All is One (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

POV sentence

• " New age writers argue people should follow their own individual path to spirituality instead of dogma. "

If this quote is correct then at least one new age writer should be cited? Terry MacKinnell (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The above sentence seems point of view. I suggest that we rewrite that sentence to be more objective; it should convey the spiritual practice/philosophy of the adherents – like the other entries in the "Spirituality" section. The lede conveys the thought better for this entry.

[New Age spirituality is characterized by an individual approach to spiritual practices and philosophies, while rejecting religious doctrine and dogma.] All is One (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I edited this for npov with reference. All is One (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Where was the preliminary discussion to move NEW AGE to NEW AGE SPIRITUALITY???

• NEW AGE is not a POV, it is an established movement and term found in countless publications, journals etc. New Age Spirituality is a subset of the new age. THIS SHOULD BE UNDONE at the earliest possible instance. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a little confused about these changes. What about the redirects and double redirects? Do people actually type "New Age spirituality" or "New Age" into the search? Religion? Wouldn't "spirituality" be capitalized if this were the proper name of a religion? Most sources define New Age as no organized religion. Where was there a discussion? The "To-do list" was erased on the talk page. All of this needed more thought, explanation, process, and consensus. This is a big move. Does it change the meaning of the article? It seemed to me like a good faith move though. Just confused ... All is One (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the move. There are many uses of the term "New Age" that do not directly refer to "Spirituality", and there are plenty of sources for them. This is a large, long-established topic. A page move would require discussion and consensus. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the actions made by Jack-A-Roe to restore the article to "New Age". The move to "New Age spirituality" caused confusion and instability to the article. I do not see any POV in the lead; it has been refined by many editors over the last several months and is about as objective as it can possibly be. All is One (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Good Article status

Main page: Wikipedia:Good articles

I propose improving "New Age" to Good Article (GA) status as soon as possible. The article has stagnated. Perhaps a peer review and some reference touch-up would help things here. Maybe WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors could work on the article as well. Also, there may be some development of the "Spirituality" and "Lifestyle" sections. A fresh perspective and some protection of collaboration would be nice. All is One (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I support such a review , please go ahead. Lumos3 (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I just added the article for peer review. Welcome new editors! All is One (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review progress can be found on the notice at the top of this talk page or by linking to and/or watching this page:

• Wikipedia:Peer review/New Age/archive1 All is One (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Update – the peer review closed on May 29, 2009 and was archived by PeerReviewBot. All is One (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• The article has improved significantly in the past year and a half. I propose nomination for good article status as soon as possible. We can make any fine-tuning edits as needed. All is One (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Good idea - due to the emotive nature of much of the content, you have steered a fairly steady NPOV course through the subject matter and I second your proposal.Terry Macro (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Even if we fail the article will improve through the process. Lumos3 (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Passed GA on November 13, 2010.

Reference for LeMesurier

I see that this article has been tagged as needing a reference for LeMesurier's book. The book is LeMesurier, P. (1990). "This New Age Business: The Ancient and Continuing Quest to Bring Down Heaven on Earth". Findhorn Press. ISBN: 978090249728. If this could go in the article reference list, it would at least act as a source for the bit about the New Age becoming entrepeneurial (and this would help to prevent the article on Transpersonal business studies becoming an orphaned article). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed the following from article since it was unreferenced and contained controversial claims by a living person:

[It is also claimed by Paul Heelas that the New Age may have grown too entrepeneurial, as is evident in the title of LeMusurier's book, "This New Age Business". Certainly some New Age practices have been used to encourage financial gain (see the article Transpersonal business studies.]

This is confusing; how are Paul Heelas' claims evident in the title of LeMusurier's book? The second sentence seems to be point of view. Please rewrite with proper inline citations, including page numbers, before re-adding to the article. All is One (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Terminology sub-section

I propose moving the "Terminology" sub-section to List of New Age topics until it can be ironed-out through copy-editing, and thoroughly referenced. The section appears rather circuitous and confusing as it currently stands; it is unreferenced and has been fact tagged for two months (done so under peer review). This section clearly looks like the weakest part of the article to me. Please advise. All is One (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved this since there were no objections. If there are any concerns, please consider moving the "Terminology" section to this talk page for further development as outlined above. All is One (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

The most recent edit to the article added this paragraph:

The New Age Movement combines neo-Nazi philosophy, occult theology, opposition to Judaism and Freemasonry, and belief in aliens, in a politico-religious movement led by David Icke.

Vandalism? Xinophiliac (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This edit was reverted on August 26, 2009. All is One (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Reception of the New Age Movement

What happened to this link -- Reception of the New Age Movement ?? 1Z (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The above article never existed. I added this as a redlink to New Age several months ago for possible development, but removed it today per WP:Criticism and WP:Content forking. All is One (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

New sections

Should we add a new section heading "In popular culture" to the article? This seems to be the next area for expansion after the "Reception" section. All is One (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I added the section. Expand as appropriate. All is One (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A "Demographics" section is also needed. I havn't found any reliable statistics so far. All is One (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I added the sub-section. Expand as appropriate. All is One (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)